JP Morgan

JPM
3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

3

Systemically important, banks are both controversial and high profile. Jamie Dimon is one of the most outspoken bank leaders in the world and one the media loves to cover. Even though he's good at navigating contentious issues like ESG, his visibility and willingness to opine means everything he says is a widely covered public statement. Similarly, the website and shareholder letters include numerous references to DEI and ESG, including subpages specific to racial demographic and sexual orientation.

Political Contributions Risk

4

Goods Unite Us data demonstrates that JP Morgan's total contributions are above average for major banks, and the sector's contributions favor Republicans, while JP Morgan favors Democrats, which raises the pH. The NYT has also reported that JP Morgan and four other large banks were banned from doing business in West Virginia because they sharply reduced their financing for coal projects.

Political Dichotomy Risk

3

Most of JP Morgan's revenue comes from its consumer and community banking and corporate and investment banking divisions. In addition, most of the bank's revenue comes from net interest income, asset management, and principle transactions. In terms of credit exposure, only 3% of JP Morgan's total revenue comes from State and municipal governments, which insulates them fairly well from a Florida Blackrock situation. Moreover, approximately 20% of JP Morgan's revenue comes from individuals, consumers, and retail, meaning a boycott would put a dent in the business but probably would not have a large material impact.

Associational Risk

2

There have been some recent headlines about relations between JP Morgan and Jeffrey Epstein and Kanye West, but JP Morgan typically cuts ties/closes accounts with high-risk people as soon as problems arise. Dimon was on Trump's business council until 2017 but ties have also been severed there. In recent news, there is no associational risk.

Brand Visibility Risk

3

As a massive bank, outside of a 2008-style event, they are relatively insulated from scandal. The banking industry has historically been fairly well insulated from scandal. Even all of the widespread press about Wells Fargo's fraudulent activities, for example, did not have a huge impact on Wells Fargo's financial viability.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

JP Morgan

JPM
3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

3

Systemically important, banks are both controversial and high profile. Jamie Dimon is one of the most outspoken bank leaders in the world and one the media loves to cover. Even though he's good at navigating contentious issues like ESG, his visibility and willingness to opine means everything he says is a widely covered public statement. Similarly, the website and shareholder letters include numerous references to DEI and ESG, including subpages specific to racial demographic and sexual orientation.

Political Contributions Risk

4

Goods Unite Us data demonstrates that JP Morgan's total contributions are above average for major banks, and the sector's contributions favor Republicans, while JP Morgan favors Democrats, which raises the pH. The NYT has also reported that JP Morgan and four other large banks were banned from doing business in West Virginia because they sharply reduced their financing for coal projects.

Political Dichotomy Risk

3

Most of JP Morgan's revenue comes from its consumer and community banking and corporate and investment banking divisions. In addition, most of the bank's revenue comes from net interest income, asset management, and principle transactions. In terms of credit exposure, only 3% of JP Morgan's total revenue comes from State and municipal governments, which insulates them fairly well from a Florida Blackrock situation. Moreover, approximately 20% of JP Morgan's revenue comes from individuals, consumers, and retail, meaning a boycott would put a dent in the business but probably would not have a large material impact.

Associational Risk

2

There have been some recent headlines about relations between JP Morgan and Jeffrey Epstein and Kanye West, but JP Morgan typically cuts ties/closes accounts with high-risk people as soon as problems arise. Dimon was on Trump's business council until 2017 but ties have also been severed there. In recent news, there is no associational risk.

Brand Visibility Risk

3

As a massive bank, outside of a 2008-style event, they are relatively insulated from scandal. The banking industry has historically been fairly well insulated from scandal. Even all of the widespread press about Wells Fargo's fraudulent activities, for example, did not have a huge impact on Wells Fargo's financial viability.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

JP Morgan

JPM
3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

3

Systemically important, banks are both controversial and high profile. Jamie Dimon is one of the most outspoken bank leaders in the world and one the media loves to cover. Even though he's good at navigating contentious issues like ESG, his visibility and willingness to opine means everything he says is a widely covered public statement. Similarly, the website and shareholder letters include numerous references to DEI and ESG, including subpages specific to racial demographic and sexual orientation.

Political Contributions Risk

4

Goods Unite Us data demonstrates that JP Morgan's total contributions are above average for major banks, and the sector's contributions favor Republicans, while JP Morgan favors Democrats, which raises the pH. The NYT has also reported that JP Morgan and four other large banks were banned from doing business in West Virginia because they sharply reduced their financing for coal projects.

Political Dichotomy Risk

3

Most of JP Morgan's revenue comes from its consumer and community banking and corporate and investment banking divisions. In addition, most of the bank's revenue comes from net interest income, asset management, and principle transactions. In terms of credit exposure, only 3% of JP Morgan's total revenue comes from State and municipal governments, which insulates them fairly well from a Florida Blackrock situation. Moreover, approximately 20% of JP Morgan's revenue comes from individuals, consumers, and retail, meaning a boycott would put a dent in the business but probably would not have a large material impact.

Associational Risk

2

There have been some recent headlines about relations between JP Morgan and Jeffrey Epstein and Kanye West, but JP Morgan typically cuts ties/closes accounts with high-risk people as soon as problems arise. Dimon was on Trump's business council until 2017 but ties have also been severed there. In recent news, there is no associational risk.

Brand Visibility Risk

3

As a massive bank, outside of a 2008-style event, they are relatively insulated from scandal. The banking industry has historically been fairly well insulated from scandal. Even all of the widespread press about Wells Fargo's fraudulent activities, for example, did not have a huge impact on Wells Fargo's financial viability.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

JP Morgan

JPM
3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

3

Systemically important, banks are both controversial and high profile. Jamie Dimon is one of the most outspoken bank leaders in the world and one the media loves to cover. Even though he's good at navigating contentious issues like ESG, his visibility and willingness to opine means everything he says is a widely covered public statement. Similarly, the website and shareholder letters include numerous references to DEI and ESG, including subpages specific to racial demographic and sexual orientation.

Political Contributions Risk

4

Goods Unite Us data demonstrates that JP Morgan's total contributions are above average for major banks, and the sector's contributions favor Republicans, while JP Morgan favors Democrats, which raises the pH. The NYT has also reported that JP Morgan and four other large banks were banned from doing business in West Virginia because they sharply reduced their financing for coal projects.

Political Dichotomy Risk

3

Most of JP Morgan's revenue comes from its consumer and community banking and corporate and investment banking divisions. In addition, most of the bank's revenue comes from net interest income, asset management, and principle transactions. In terms of credit exposure, only 3% of JP Morgan's total revenue comes from State and municipal governments, which insulates them fairly well from a Florida Blackrock situation. Moreover, approximately 20% of JP Morgan's revenue comes from individuals, consumers, and retail, meaning a boycott would put a dent in the business but probably would not have a large material impact.

Associational Risk

2

There have been some recent headlines about relations between JP Morgan and Jeffrey Epstein and Kanye West, but JP Morgan typically cuts ties/closes accounts with high-risk people as soon as problems arise. Dimon was on Trump's business council until 2017 but ties have also been severed there. In recent news, there is no associational risk.

Brand Visibility Risk

3

As a massive bank, outside of a 2008-style event, they are relatively insulated from scandal. The banking industry has historically been fairly well insulated from scandal. Even all of the widespread press about Wells Fargo's fraudulent activities, for example, did not have a huge impact on Wells Fargo's financial viability.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

JP Morgan

JPM
3
Companies list

Public Statements Risk

3

Systemically important, banks are both controversial and high profile. Jamie Dimon is one of the most outspoken bank leaders in the world and one the media loves to cover. Even though he's good at navigating contentious issues like ESG, his visibility and willingness to opine means everything he says is a widely covered public statement. Similarly, the website and shareholder letters include numerous references to DEI and ESG, including subpages specific to racial demographic and sexual orientation.

Political Contributions Risk

4

Goods Unite Us data demonstrates that JP Morgan's total contributions are above average for major banks, and the sector's contributions favor Republicans, while JP Morgan favors Democrats, which raises the pH. The NYT has also reported that JP Morgan and four other large banks were banned from doing business in West Virginia because they sharply reduced their financing for coal projects.

Political Dichotomy Risk

3

Most of JP Morgan's revenue comes from its consumer and community banking and corporate and investment banking divisions. In addition, most of the bank's revenue comes from net interest income, asset management, and principle transactions. In terms of credit exposure, only 3% of JP Morgan's total revenue comes from State and municipal governments, which insulates them fairly well from a Florida Blackrock situation. Moreover, approximately 20% of JP Morgan's revenue comes from individuals, consumers, and retail, meaning a boycott would put a dent in the business but probably would not have a large material impact.

Associational Risk

2

There have been some recent headlines about relations between JP Morgan and Jeffrey Epstein and Kanye West, but JP Morgan typically cuts ties/closes accounts with high-risk people as soon as problems arise. Dimon was on Trump's business council until 2017 but ties have also been severed there. In recent news, there is no associational risk.

Brand Visibility Risk

3

As a massive bank, outside of a 2008-style event, they are relatively insulated from scandal. The banking industry has historically been fairly well insulated from scandal. Even all of the widespread press about Wells Fargo's fraudulent activities, for example, did not have a huge impact on Wells Fargo's financial viability.

Political Hazard (pH) Ratings Explained

A corporation’s Political Hazard Rating, or pH rating, is an overall assessment of the corporation’s likelihood of facing a material consumer boycott or investor backlash from a controversy caused by the company’s or its executives’ political activities and proclivities. The pH ratings range from 1 to 5, with a higher rating correlating with higher risk. The categories below are the components considered when setting a company’s pH rating.

Public Statements Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and the corporations’ own prior public political statements, including their frequency and whether they have tended to be, or actually have been, controversial or high-profile.

Political Dichotomy Risk

Rates the corporation based on the dichotomy, if any, between the executives’ and/or corporations’ own prior political contributions or statements and the likely political leaning of the corporation’s consumer base.

Political Contributions Risk

Rates the corporation based on the magnitude of the executives’ and/or corporations’ total political contributions to politicians and PACs, benchmarked to sector, and the weighted nature of those contributions as between political parties.

Associational Risk

Rates the corporation based on its executives’ and/or the corporation’s own prior political contributions and/or public association with particularly controversial people or high-profile politicians or PACs.

Brand Visibility Risk

Rates the corporation's risk relative to sector with higher risk being associated with higher brand visibility

See this company on INDEXALIGN

Read the reports of these top S&P 500 companies

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

AB InBev

AT&T

Adobe

Advance Auto Parts

Alphabet

Amazon

American Express

Apple

AutoZone

Bath & Body Works

Best Buy

Biogen

Brown Forman

CVS

Caesar's

Campbell

CarMax

Carnival

Charter

Chipotle

Clorox

Coke

Colgate Palmolive

Comcast

Constellation Brands

Costco

Digital Realty

Disney

Dollar General

Dollar Tree

Domino's

EA

Equinix

Estee Lauder

Etsy

Expedia

FedEx

First Energy

Ford

Fox

Garmin

General Mills

General Motors

Hasbro

Hershey's

Hilton

Home Depot

Hormel

Intuit

JM Smucker

JP Morgan

Keurig Dr. Pepper

Kraft Heinz

Kroger

Las Vegas Sands

Lowe's

MGM Resorts

Marriott

McCormick

McDonald's

Meta

Microsoft

Moderna

Molson Coors

Monster

Motorola

Netflix

Nike

Norwegian Cruise

Nvidia

Oracle

Paramount

Pepsi

Pfizer

Procter & Gamble

Ralph Lauren

Ross

Royal Caribbean

Salesforce

Starbucks

Sysco

T-Mobile

TJX

Take Two

Tapestry

Target

Tesla

Tyson

UPS

Ulta

United Airlines

VF Corp

Verizon

Walgreens

Walmart

Warner Bros. Discovery

Waste Management

Wynn

Yum!

eBay

“As a political data company, we are uniquely positioned to measure a company’s pH.” Abigail Wuest, CEO